Participatory mixed-methods study evaluates peer support integration in early intervention services, highlighting stakeholder engagement.
Introduction Since 2019, SARPEP (Système Apprenant Rapide pour les programmes de Premiers Épisodes Psychotiques), a rapid learning health system (RLHS) for Quebec's Early Intervention for Psychosis Services, operates to bridge the evidence‐practice gap across the province. Despite strong stakeholder support and government recommendations, peer support services remained poorly available. To address this gap, since 2023, the PAIRPEP project was co‐developed to support and evaluate the implementation of peer support and family peer support. This paper describes the co‐designed study protocol, embedded within this RLHS. Methods This participatory, mixed‐methods study aims to examine the implementation of the PAIRPEP intervention longitudinally over 3 years across 12 Early Intervention Services and its impact on multiple stakeholders. Informed by the Medical Research Council framework for complex interventions, the project includes a co‐designed (with multiple stakeholders) multimodal capacity‐building program with specific components developed to overcome barriers to integrating peer support and family peer support. Quantitative questionnaires are collected every 4 months from clinicians while youth and families can complete surveys at any convenient time, via QR codes available in clinics, through the RLHS electronic platform. Focus groups are conducted annually over 3 years with eight stakeholder groups. The analysis integrates findings using thematic synthesis and joint displays to assess convergence and divergence across methods and perspectives. Results and Conclusion This protocol paper outlines the study's co‐design, procedures and anticipated contributions. Embedding large‐scale innovative intervention implementation (such as peer support) within an RLHS can foster real‐time feedback, iterative refinement and inform clinical practice and policies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Todesco et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: